RACIMO MELANIE NARCISO AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

RACIMO MELANIE NARCISO AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO and there was no realistic prospect of success; an RPO is justified and made because the applicants' conduct and repetition of the same factual complaints amount to an abuse of process and are likely to lead to repetitive litigation, warranting restraint under the court's inherent jurisdiction.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5499
Parties
1st Applicant: Racimo Melanie Narciso; 2nd Applicant: Domingo Darryl Racimo; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 November 2025
Case Number
HCAL2047/2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review: Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; Notification of Decision; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; leave refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicants.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Public Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order Abuse of Process +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Racimo Melanie Narciso

1st Applicant

Domingo Darryl Racimo

2nd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review: Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; Notification of Decision; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants satisfied s.37ZO Immigration Ordinance by showing significant change of circumstances since previous claim
  2. 2 Whether applicants' subsequent claim has a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Director complied with public law requirements and did not misapply fact‑finding

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO and there was no realistic prospect of success; an RPO is justified and made because the applicants' conduct and repetition of the same factual complaints amount to an abuse of process and are likely to lead to repetitive litigation, warranting restraint under the court's inherent jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; leave refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicants.

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused and the applicants' application dismissed.
  • Restricted Proceedings Order prohibiting the applicants from commencing fresh proceedings or continuing existing legal proceedings relating to any non‑refoulement claim in the High Court or any appeal without leave of the Court of First Instance.